President Trump- The Implications

[Breadburner]

Interesting... what exactly has he done right that overcomes even one of the vile and disgusting things he has done?   One example of each would be just great....

How many of those fingers are pointing back at you...LOL...

[Breadburner]

Your argument is that Trump lies with such frequency that We the People shouldn't believe anything he says.  Therefore, the negative things he says about himself are also probably false.  So Trump probably does read a lot and listen to the experts, in spite of consistent statements and all evidence to the contrary.

He lies about it.  His staff lies. His intelligence agencies lie about it. Everyone who works with or has worked with him is lying when they say he simply won't read anything.  Every news organization has been fooled. He consistently made it seem like he doesn't read or listen to experts from the earliest moments in the campaign to the present.  It is all a great ruse to make people thing he is a rube for (reasons).

Seriously, essentially your argument is because he is so full of crap, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Because he lies, he is infallible.

You can't actually believe that. Just, I mean.  No way.

This is the tortured world one has to live to try to try and support this man in a meaningful way.  He lies so much, you have to assume the thing one interprets as a negative is also a lie. That's somehow support for him. I'm, I'm reduced to a stammering idiot.

Lol...This is some serious Histrionics....

[erfalf]

Interesting... what exactly has he done right that overcomes even one of the vile and disgusting things he has done?   One example of each would be just great....

Well this week he signed "Right to Try".

It helps sometimes to take the blinders off.

Since he has taken office, consumer confidence is at its highest point in a few decades. Israeli relations have improved. The spigot to Iran has been shut off. Cutting regs left and right. Not to say there haven't been some mis-steps (Omnibus Omnibus Omnibus, and just speaking in public in general).

And while this may not be something done right in your eyes, by many Justice Gorsuch was probably the single thing that justified their vote for Trump in the first place.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm saying he has done enough right that you can't say without question that you know if he is full of crap or not. If I am to take the perception of him at face value, there should be a bumbling mess with absolutely nothing getting done and about 3 nuclear wars going on. yet the exact opposite has actually happened. You tell me who is crazy.

When you have to make "consistent lying" into a positive for a politician, something has gone terribly wrong.

[swake]

Well this week he signed "Right to Try".

It helps sometimes to take the blinders off.

Since he has taken office, consumer confidence is at its highest point in a few decades. Israeli relations have improved. The spigot to Iran has been shut off. Cutting regs left and right. Not to say there haven't been some mis-steps (Omnibus Omnibus Omnibus, and just speaking in public in general).

And while this may not be something done right in your eyes, by many Justice Gorsuch was probably the single thing that justified their vote for Trump in the first place.

He improved relations with Israel? Did they need improving? Was it worth dozens of dead and thousands of injured?

Removed regulations? Like coal ash in streams? Or letting predatory lenders work freely again? Or for profit colleges that rip off vets work again? Or doesn't stop banks from discriminating with higher rates for minorities? Or removed the regulations this week to stop large banks from making risky bets with money, the kind of activity that led to the last financial melt down. Yeah, that all sounds just great.

Iran restarting their nuclear program is such a big win too, way to go there.

Right to try IS a good thing, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

As for Gorsuch, a rubber stamp for Trump is good?

[erfalf]

He improved relations with Israel? Did they need improving? Was it worth dozens of dead and thousands of injured?

Removed regulations? Like coal ash in streams? Or letting predatory lenders work freely again? Or for profit colleges that rip off vets work again? Or doesn't stop banks from discriminating with higher rates for minorities? Or removed the regulations this week to stop large banks from making risky bets with money, the kind of activity that led to the last financial melt down. Yeah, that all sounds just great.

Iran restarting their nuclear program is such a big win too, way to go there.

Right to try IS a good thing, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

As for Gorsuch, a rubber stamp for Trump is good?

Yes dozens of dead terrorists are a good thing. And you know as well as I that Obama had a cold shoulder attitude toward Israel, confusingly as they are the one consistent ally in the region of regimes that we usually can't control or believe (see Iran).

Enough with the hyperventilating. Specific examples and I'm sure sure I can prove every one of your concerns is overblown. Here is at least a damper on the first. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/

Iran never stopped. Get over yourself.

A rubber stamp for Trump, again, enough with the hyperventilating. Name a case that Trump has even made an attempt to sway public opinion on. Or legislation that Trump favored that has come before the court.

[erfalf]

When you have to make "consistent lying" into a positive for a politician, something has gone terribly wrong.

More of an understanding of reality than a positive spin for him. You are putting words into my mouth. I don't care what he thinks or says, I care what he does. And how do I predict what he does? Well, going off what he says doesn't seem to be working.

[Ed W]

I'm trying to understand how removing regulations on the killing of whales and sea turtles in commercial fishing nets - regulations that were backed by commercial fisheries - are meant to be an improvement. Commercial fishing faced two problems: the PR aspect of killing whales and turtles as well as the long term sustainability of their business. These regulations addressed both.

How does Trump arrive at these decisions?

[swake]

Yes dozens of dead terrorists are a good thing. And you know as well as I that Obama had a cold shoulder attitude toward Israel, confusingly as they are the one consistent ally in the region of regimes that we usually can't control or believe (see Iran).

Enough with the hyperventilating. Specific examples and I'm sure sure I can prove every one of your concerns is overblown. Here is at least a damper on the first. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/06/dump-coal-waste-into-streams/

Iran never stopped. Get over yourself.

A rubber stamp for Trump, again, enough with the hyperventilating. Name a case that Trump has even made an attempt to sway public opinion on. Or legislation that Trump favored that has come before the court.

Terrorists? Or victims of an armed occupation and blockade for the last 70 years? Perspectives can vary.

You own link to snopes says this:

Did President Trump Make It Legal to Dump Coal Mining Waste Into Streams?
A joint resolution headed for President Trump's signature would repeal a law that limited mining companies' ability to dump earthen mining waste into streams, but this resolution actually represents a return to a status that has been in effect, intermittently, since 1983.

So yes, he did sign an action that allowed coal ash to again be dumped in streams. Just because it was allowed in the past, does not change the fact that is was banned and Trump's action made it legal again. You don't read.

Even Mike Pompeo said that Iran was adhering to the nuclear deal. They were not working on Nuclear weapons. That likely will not be the case in the coming months.

[erfalf]

Terrorists? Or victims of an armed occupation and blockade for the last 70 years? Perspectives can vary.

I believe over half were documented to have been terror operatives, and as you know they like to use human/women/child shields. So yes, I meant terrorists.

You own link to snopes says this:

So yes, he did sign an action that allowed coal ash to again be dumped in streams. Just because it was allowed in the past, does not change the fact that is was banned and Trump's action made it legal again. You don't read.

My snopes article also says how the reg it rolled back doesn't even prohibit the act, just regulated where those permits could be issued. Quit being so selective in your outrage. 

Even Mike Pompeo said that Iran was adhering to the nuclear deal. They were not working on Nuclear weapons. That likely will not be the case in the coming months.

This Mike Pompeo?

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-pompeo-israel-proved-iran-lied-about-nuclear-weapons-906681
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/05/21/pompeos-iran-strategy-speech-lacked-a-real-strategy/?utm_term=.49bfcc39bcc2

Hard to imagine he made that comment in all seriousness.

The deal allowed for enrichment of uranium. They never stopped. It limited it (supposedly).

[erfalf]

I'm trying to understand how removing regulations on the killing of whales and sea turtles in commercial fishing nets - regulations that were backed by commercial fisheries - are meant to be an improvement. Commercial fishing faced two problems: the PR aspect of killing whales and turtles as well as the long term sustainability of their business. These regulations addressed both.

How does Trump arrive at these decisions?

Dig

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-trump-marine-mammals-20170612-story.html

Although the restriction was recommended by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fisheries division said studies show that the pending rule is not warranted because other protections have dramatically reduced the number of marine mammals and turtles trapped in long, drifting gill nets.

and

"The cap would have imposed a cost on the industry to solve a problem that has already been addressed."

There are generally innocuous reasons, or duplicative regulations, to get rid of most of them. And I would bet that most that he has cut don't even represent a major policy shift from his predecessor.

However, I'm sure there are some that may be problematic. I didn't say everything he did was perfect for goodness sake. But at least the one you mentioned is no where as menacing as it sounds.

[swake]

I believe over half were documented to have been terror operatives, and as you know they like to use human/women/child shields. So yes, I meant terrorists.

My snopes article also says how the reg it rolled back doesn't even prohibit the act, just regulated where those permits could be issued. Quit being so selective in your outrage.  

This Mike Pompeo?

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-pompeo-israel-proved-iran-lied-about-nuclear-weapons-906681
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/05/21/pompeos-iran-strategy-speech-lacked-a-real-strategy/?utm_term=.49bfcc39bcc2

Hard to imagine he made that comment in all seriousness.

The deal allowed for enrichment of uranium. They never stopped. It limited it (supposedly).

Yeah, that Pompeo. He said this when he was actually under oath before congress:

UDALL: Yes. Do you have any evidence to dispute the IAEA assessment that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA?

POMPEO: Senator, with the information that I've been provided, I have no -- I've seen no evidence that they are not in compliance today. I think the -- I think your question is, do you have any? The answer is no.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1804/12/ip.01.html

There is no evidence that they went beyond allowed enrichment, the agreement allowed Uranium enriched to 3.7%. Weapons grade starts at 20%. The IAEA said they were in compliance. Now they have no reason to be.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/irans-uranium-enrichment

[erfalf]

Yeah, that Pompeo. He said this when he was actually under oath before congress:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1804/12/ip.01.html

There is no evidence that they went beyond allowed enrichment, the agreement allowed Uranium enriched to 3.7%. Weapons grade starts at 20%. The IAEA said they were in compliance. Now they have no reason to be.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/irans-uranium-enrichment

Saying that he had no evidence (at that time) that they were NOT adhering to the deal is decidedly different than what you said, which is why I challenged it in the first place.

You said:

Even Mike Pompeo said that Iran was adhering to the nuclear deal. They were not working on Nuclear weapons. That likely will not be the case in the coming months.

[swake]

Saying that he had no evidence (at that time) that they were NOT adhering to the deal is decidedly different than what you said, which is why I challenged it in the first place.

You said:

Find a link with evidence that Iran was working on building nuclear weapons at the time Trump canceled the deal.

Also, this pointless trade war is bad, bad bad. Trump has destroyed our relationships with our closest allies and ended our place as the world leader.  

[erfalf]

Find a link with evidence that Iran was working on building nuclear weapons at the time Trump canceled the deal.

Also, this pointless trade war is bad, bad bad. Trump has destroyed our relationships with our closest allies and ended our place as the world leader.  

The nucluear deal allowed for the continued research and development of advanced centrifuges. Why would they need this if not to enrich uranium to weaponize (which the deal also permitted in time).

Although the UN Security Countil demanded Iran cease all enriching, they continued to do so at the Natanz facility. They also continue to operate the centrifuges at the Fordow facility, all though they say they (the Iranians take that for what it is worth) do not enrich uranium there.

While a sane leader would have demanded that Iran comply with UN sanctions prior to this new deal, we did not.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17326650/iran-nuclear-deal-withdraw-trump-speech-goldberg-interview

You say (without any evidence other than the lying Iranian leaders words) that Iran will race toward building a weapon now. They could have done this many times over the last few decades, but did not. If they did now, it would be suicide. You presume that the US and allies would just sit back and watch and let it happen. I seriously doubt this would be the case. They would basically extinguish all economic ties that this deal allowed for them. Why would they want to cut that gravy train off? By ending our agreement to the deal we gave ourselves more options to put pressure on Iran, our economic pressure is back in play.